James Fishkin: Is Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization?

James Fishkin: Is Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization? Reflections on “America in One Room” This talk is positioned at the intersectionof two literatures: partisan polarizatio

Postponed. New date pending. James Fishkin, Professor of Communication, Professor of Political Science (by courtesy) and Director of the Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University. Abstract D

AbstractIs Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization? Reflections on “America in One Room” Register here to join the seminar This talk is positioned at the intersectionof two literatures

Economics & Philosophy Abstract Variable-Value axiologies avoid Parfit’s Repugnant Conclusion while satisfying some weak instances of the Mere Addition principle. We apply calibration methods to two

Place: At the Institute for Futures Studies, Holländargatan 13, Stockholm, or online.REGISTERAbstractThe principle of neutrality can be seen as a direct response to the totalistapproach to evaluating popu

Katie Steele: Neutrality About Creating Good Lives - No Panacea For Longtermism

The principle of neutrality can be seen as a direct response to the totalist approach to evaluating populations of varying constitution and size: while the latter holds that the addition of a good lif

Lambros Roumbanis

My research focuses on the organization of expert judgments, evaluation technologies, selection mechanisms, and complex decision-making processes. More specifically, I study how organizations deal wit

Karsten Klint Jensen, Associate Professor, Department of Food and Resource Economics (IFRO), University of Copenhagen. ABSTRACTIn this talk I ask whether the genuine representation of future generation

Karin Bäckstrand

I am a Professor in Environmental Social Science at the Department of Political Science at Stockholm University. My research revolves around global environmental politics, non-state actors in climate

Should Extinction Be Forever?, Philosophy and Technology, First online: 17 october 2015 This article will explore a problem which is related to our moral obligations towards species. Although the re-cr, (6128), 32–33, ). This article will provide an argument in favour of re-creation based on normative considerations. The environmentalist community generally accepts that it is wrong to exterminate species, for reasons beyond any instrumental value these species may have. It is often also claimed that humanity has a collective responsibility to either preserve or at least to not exterminate species. These two beliefs are here assumed to be correct. The argument presented here departs from and places these two ideas in a deontological framework, from which it is argued that when humanity causes the extinction of a species, this is a moral transgression, entailing a residual obligation. Such an obligation implies a positive duty to mitigate any harm caused by our moral failure. In light of recent scientific progress in the field of genetic engineering, it will be argued that humanity has a prima facie obligation to re-create species whose extinction mankind may have caused, also known as de-extinction.